The center argues in its filing that class members “will see not one penny.” “This settlement exemplifies the problem of class action attorneys behaving as if they have no clients other than the general public,” Adam Schulman said in a statement. “It is unacceptable to propose a settlement that waives class members’ rights yet provides them absolutely nothing in return.”
“This happens all the time,” said Frank. “Lawyers pad their bills with overstated hourly work to make their fee request seem less of a windfall.”
CCAF Attorney Adam Schulman said, “This settlement exemplifies the problem of class action attorneys behaving as if they have no clients other than the general public. It is unacceptable to propose a settlement that waives class members’ rights yet provides them absolutely nothing in return."
The Boston Globe discusses Thornton Law Firm's legal fees in class-action lawsuits with the Center for Class Action Fairness's founder Ted Frank. Critics of the way lawyers are paid in class-action lawsuits acknowledge that firms often dramatically mark up the rates of their lower-paid attorneys when seeking legal fees in court, but they say Thornton has pushed the practice to an extreme. “This happens all the time,” said Ted Frank, a lawyer…
Earlier this week the Center for Class Action Fairness filed a motion to intervene and seek disgorgement from for-profit “professional objectors” in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., a case dealing with allegedly deceptive marketing practices by makers of health supplements. The Center became involved in the case in 2014 when it objected to a class action settlement that would have provided attorneys $4.5 million but less than $900,000 to the class. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed and reversed approval of the…
“[T]he cacophony created by shoddy objections brought by bad-faith objectors,” the lawsuit states,” interferes with a court’s ability to fairly consider the reasoned good-faith objections brought by the Center.”
In class-action lawsuits the threat of astronomical liability drives many defendants to settle — even if the plaintiffs’ chances of success are negligible. But because there’s only so much money that defendants are willing to spend, such nuisance lawsuits often lead to settlements where the attorneys get more than their fair share. It works like a formula: The plaintiffs’ attorneys and the few named representative plaintiffs divvy up the entire cash proceeds, leaving the remainder of the class with a potpourri of worthless window dressing.
The Center for Class Action Fairness won a victory for consumers when a court in the Northern District of California entered an order this week agreeing with CCAF’s position that more than $2.35 million in uncashed checks in the Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation settlement should go to consumers rather than to third-party charities unrelated to the litigation.
A plaintiffs’ attorney and an insurance executive have created a business, Risk Settlements, that offers a “post-lawsuit settlement insurance product specifically designed to manage settlement risk, cap exposure and provide certainty to the uncertain world of class action settlements.” That this business model is viable—and that it purports to save class-action defendants millions of dollars in claims-made settlements—demonstrates the need for courts to provide scrutiny of what class-action settlements actually provide consumers.
This time, the good guys finished first. On August 10, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in In Re: Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litigation, No. 15-3799. One by one, Judge Posner dissected each of the six Supplemental Disclosures and held that they offered nothing to the shareholders. Nil. He found that the class action attorneys were inadequate representatives because they were only interested in fees and recommended that the whole case be dismissed.
